Central Park's Adventure-Style Playgrounds: Renewal of a Midcentury Legacy by Marie Warsh (review)

Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1353/bdl.2022.0006
K. Bresnahan
{"title":"Central Park's Adventure-Style Playgrounds: Renewal of a Midcentury Legacy by Marie Warsh (review)","authors":"K. Bresnahan","doi":"10.1353/bdl.2022.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Asian, and Hispanic communities— each of which deserves much more attention, given that there is as much geographical diversity among these communities in America as there is cultural diversity in their practices, rituals, physical representations, and connections to areas such as food, music, and design. “Public mourning” is discussed with examination of “everyday memorials as spaces of public mourning,” including “vinyl decals, ghost bikes, Internet cemeteries . . . as objects of mourning” (115). This is one of the high points of Sloane’s investigation because it catalogs these expressions, including those in social media platforms, and explores their meanings. This section’s last chapter, “Reintroducing the Cemetery,” explores how cemeteries have become places where activities happen other than those associated with death. In creative efforts to remain relevant (or, more accurately, visible to new audiences), privately managed cemeteries have morphed into quasipublic spaces with events such as tours related to historical or celebrity occupants, funerary sculpture, and natural features; fundraising events for maintenance costs; theatrical productions, “ghost walks,” evening movies, touring bands, and comedy shows; and even 5K races. In doing so, the “paradox is that cemeteries are trying so hard to make themselves part of the public realm through the development of traditional (and innovative) tours and events,” rather than devoting time and attention to those for whom the cemetery exists— the families whose loved ones are buried there (156– 57). The final section examines “Memorials” and how such representations have evolved from gravestones incised with basic personal information, or perhaps a brief quotation about the deceased with an iconic symbol, to representations far removed from cemeteries that reflect contemporary social and cultural values, public “RIP” murals, roadside memorials, ghost bicycles, tattoos, and even digital platforms. Particularly insightful is Table 8.1, “Types of everyday memorials organized from personal to public” that lists eight “Types/ Focus” examples from “More Personal” to “More Public” with notations of locations, descriptions, decorative motifs, purposes, and origins (193). This chart, together with an earlier one, “Types and characteristics of digital memorial sites, categorized by personal to public” should certainly be the genesis of further academic explorations, from contemporary inclass discussions to future theses and dissertations (118). Sloane closes with speculations on how ongoing changes in attitudes about ethnic, racial, cultural, and sexual identities are represented in contemporary attitudes about death and cemeteries. Particularly poignant is his inclusion of the inscription on the grave marker of Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich, a gay Vietnam veteran, located in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C.: “When I was in the military/They gave me a medal for killing two men/And a discharge for loving one.” Ironically, his grave is “down the row” from those of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, a noted homophobe, and Clyde Tolson, Hoover’s longtime “associate director, heir, and possible lover” (231). Finally, the author poses provocative questions: How will technology change our traditions related to death? “Will we be sitting at home looking at a computer, standing next to a gravestone, or doing a little of both?” (232). After all, next to Matlovich’s grave, barely legible, is a small card with a QR code that generates a story about Matlovich. “In a digital age,” the author notes, “we should not be surprised that grief has moved to the Internet, and digital images are offering new venues for mourning” (232– 33). So, what is the future of death and how will we mourn in the future? Sloane’s answer, fittingly, confirms the value of his Januslike approach to his subject: “the best way is to imagine the future as the past and the present.” As the author notes, we all want to leave behind something as evidence of our having been here, and in so doing, we likely will “bring along elements of our traditions and rituals to comfort us” (242). This book provides context, even if not encyclopedic, for understanding many American traditions and rituals associated with death, mourning, memorializing, and cemeteries, and proposes provocative questions about how we might think about these subjects in the future.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bdl.2022.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Asian, and Hispanic communities— each of which deserves much more attention, given that there is as much geographical diversity among these communities in America as there is cultural diversity in their practices, rituals, physical representations, and connections to areas such as food, music, and design. “Public mourning” is discussed with examination of “everyday memorials as spaces of public mourning,” including “vinyl decals, ghost bikes, Internet cemeteries . . . as objects of mourning” (115). This is one of the high points of Sloane’s investigation because it catalogs these expressions, including those in social media platforms, and explores their meanings. This section’s last chapter, “Reintroducing the Cemetery,” explores how cemeteries have become places where activities happen other than those associated with death. In creative efforts to remain relevant (or, more accurately, visible to new audiences), privately managed cemeteries have morphed into quasipublic spaces with events such as tours related to historical or celebrity occupants, funerary sculpture, and natural features; fundraising events for maintenance costs; theatrical productions, “ghost walks,” evening movies, touring bands, and comedy shows; and even 5K races. In doing so, the “paradox is that cemeteries are trying so hard to make themselves part of the public realm through the development of traditional (and innovative) tours and events,” rather than devoting time and attention to those for whom the cemetery exists— the families whose loved ones are buried there (156– 57). The final section examines “Memorials” and how such representations have evolved from gravestones incised with basic personal information, or perhaps a brief quotation about the deceased with an iconic symbol, to representations far removed from cemeteries that reflect contemporary social and cultural values, public “RIP” murals, roadside memorials, ghost bicycles, tattoos, and even digital platforms. Particularly insightful is Table 8.1, “Types of everyday memorials organized from personal to public” that lists eight “Types/ Focus” examples from “More Personal” to “More Public” with notations of locations, descriptions, decorative motifs, purposes, and origins (193). This chart, together with an earlier one, “Types and characteristics of digital memorial sites, categorized by personal to public” should certainly be the genesis of further academic explorations, from contemporary inclass discussions to future theses and dissertations (118). Sloane closes with speculations on how ongoing changes in attitudes about ethnic, racial, cultural, and sexual identities are represented in contemporary attitudes about death and cemeteries. Particularly poignant is his inclusion of the inscription on the grave marker of Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich, a gay Vietnam veteran, located in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C.: “When I was in the military/They gave me a medal for killing two men/And a discharge for loving one.” Ironically, his grave is “down the row” from those of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, a noted homophobe, and Clyde Tolson, Hoover’s longtime “associate director, heir, and possible lover” (231). Finally, the author poses provocative questions: How will technology change our traditions related to death? “Will we be sitting at home looking at a computer, standing next to a gravestone, or doing a little of both?” (232). After all, next to Matlovich’s grave, barely legible, is a small card with a QR code that generates a story about Matlovich. “In a digital age,” the author notes, “we should not be surprised that grief has moved to the Internet, and digital images are offering new venues for mourning” (232– 33). So, what is the future of death and how will we mourn in the future? Sloane’s answer, fittingly, confirms the value of his Januslike approach to his subject: “the best way is to imagine the future as the past and the present.” As the author notes, we all want to leave behind something as evidence of our having been here, and in so doing, we likely will “bring along elements of our traditions and rituals to comfort us” (242). This book provides context, even if not encyclopedic, for understanding many American traditions and rituals associated with death, mourning, memorializing, and cemeteries, and proposes provocative questions about how we might think about these subjects in the future.
分享
查看原文
中央公园的冒险风格游乐场:世纪中叶遗产的更新玛丽·沃什(书评)
亚裔和西班牙裔社区——每个社区都值得更多的关注,因为在美国,这些社区在地理上的多样性与他们在实践、仪式、身体表现以及与食物、音乐和设计等领域的联系方面的文化多样性一样多。“公众哀悼”是通过考察“作为公众哀悼空间的日常纪念”来讨论的,包括“乙烯基贴花、幽灵自行车、互联网墓地……”作为哀悼的对象”(115)。这是斯隆研究的亮点之一,因为它对这些表达进行了分类,包括社交媒体平台上的表达,并探讨了它们的含义。本节的最后一章,“重新介绍墓地”,探讨了墓地如何成为发生与死亡无关的活动的地方。为了保持相关性(或者,更准确地说,对新观众来说是可见的),私人管理的墓地已经演变成准公共空间,其中包括与历史或名人有关的旅游、葬礼雕塑和自然景观;维修费用筹款活动;戏剧作品、“幽灵漫步”、晚间电影、巡回乐队和喜剧表演;甚至是5公里赛跑。在这样做的过程中,“矛盾的是,墓地正努力通过发展传统的(和创新的)旅游和活动,使自己成为公共领域的一部分”,而不是把时间和精力花在那些为墓地而存在的人身上——那些埋葬在那里的亲人的家庭(156 - 57)。最后一部分考察了“纪念碑”,以及这些代表是如何从刻着基本个人信息的墓碑,或者可能是对死者的简短引用,以及一个标志性的符号,发展到远离墓地,反映当代社会和文化价值观的代表,公共“安息”壁画,路边纪念碑,幽灵自行车,纹身,甚至数字平台。特别有见地的是表8.1,“从个人到公共组织的日常纪念类型”,它列出了从“更个人”到“更公共”的八个“类型/焦点”例子,并附有地点、描述、装饰图案、目的和起源的标记(193)。这张图表,连同之前的“数字纪念场所的类型和特征,从个人到公共的分类”,当然应该成为进一步学术探索的起源,从当代的课堂讨论到未来的论文和学位论文(118)。斯隆在书的最后提出了一些猜测,即当代人们对死亡和墓地的态度如何体现了对民族、种族、文化和性别身份的态度的持续变化。尤其令人心切的是,他在位于华盛顿特区国会公墓的越战同性恋老兵、技术中士伦纳德·马特洛维奇(Leonard Matlovich)的墓碑上写了这样一句话:“当我在军队服役时,他们给了我一枚勋章,因为我杀了两个人/因为我爱一个人而被开除。”具有讽刺意味的是,他的坟墓就在联邦调查局局长j·埃德加·胡佛和克莱德·托尔森(Clyde Tolson)的坟墓“隔壁”,前者是著名的同性恋憎恶者,后者是胡佛长期的“副局长、继承人和可能的情人”(231页)。最后,作者提出了一些具有挑衅性的问题:技术将如何改变我们与死亡有关的传统?“我们会坐在家里看着电脑,站在墓碑旁,还是两者兼而有之?””(232)。毕竟,在马特洛维奇的坟墓旁边,有一张小卡片,上面有一个QR码,上面写着一个关于马特洛维奇的故事。“在数字时代,”作者指出,“我们不应该对悲伤转移到互联网上感到惊讶,数字图像为哀悼提供了新的场所”(232 - 33)。那么,死亡的未来是什么?未来我们将如何哀悼?斯隆的回答恰如其分地证实了他的雅努斯式研究方法的价值:“最好的方法是把未来想象成过去和现在。”正如作者所指出的,我们都想留下一些东西作为我们曾经在这里的证据,这样做,我们可能会“带来我们的传统和仪式的元素来安慰我们”(242)。这本书为理解许多与死亡、哀悼、纪念和墓地有关的美国传统和仪式提供了背景,即使不是百科全书式的,并提出了关于我们未来如何思考这些主题的挑衅性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信